Some confusion here.
The point at issue in my post concerns Tom Moore's apparent
claim that "supernatural ID" is (probably) an in-principle
untestable or empirically empty theory.
That's false. Darwin's entire published corpus, including
his transformation notebooks, refutes it.
Whether any *current* ID theory is similarly testable or
observationally at risk is an open question. But claims about
the in-principle untestability of ID ought to be tempered by (a) the
historical record, and (b) one's own scientific imagination.
This isn't a matter of "using ID theory where it isn't needed."
The question, rather, turns on whether one can *conceive* of
an ID theory that rules out possibly observable states of
affairs -- in philosophical jargon, that sustains counterfactuals.
And the answer is, not only are such theories conceivable,
they exist.
Paul Nelson